Vann Media Group Inc. v. Oakville (Town)

Vann Media Group Inc. v. Oakville (Town)

Court found ss.39(1), (3), (4) and (5)(b) of Bylaw 2006-005 failed the minimal impairment branch of Oakes because their combined effect eliminated virtually all commercially viable third party sign locations in Oakville outside residential areas; upheld s.39(5)(a) and s.39(6) as minimally impairing; concluded s.24(1) permit order was inappropriate absent bad faith and substituted relief quashing only the identified provisions suspended for six months.

Citation
2008 ONCA 752
Parties
Applicant (respondent): Vann Media Group Inc.; Respondent (appellant): The Corporation of the Town of Oakville; Respondent (appellant): Shelley Switzer
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge (charter S.2(b)) Municipal Sign Bylaw / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment below varied
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Section 1 Oakes Test, Sign Bylaws, Remedies Under S.52 and S.24 of the Charter, Minimal Impairment
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Municipal Law Administrative Law Civil Litigation Freedom of Expression Section 1 Oakes Test Sign Bylaws Remedies Under S.52 and S.24 of the Charter +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vann Media Group Inc.

Applicant (respondent)

The Corporation of the Town of Oakville

Respondent (appellant)

Shelley Switzer

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge (charter S.2(b)) Municipal Sign Bylaw / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bylaw's restrictions on third party advertising signs infringe s.2(b) of the Charter and if so whether the infringement is justified under s.1
  2. 2 Whether the application judge erred in quashing the entire bylaw and ordering specific permits under s.24(1) as opposed to a narrower s.52(1) remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Court found ss.39(1), (3), (4) and (5)(b) of Bylaw 2006-005 failed the minimal impairment branch of Oakes because their combined effect eliminated virtually all commercially viable third party sign locations in Oakville outside residential areas; upheld s.39(5)(a) and s.39(6) as minimally impairing; concluded s.24(1) permit order was inappropriate absent bad faith and substituted relief quashing only the identified provisions suspended for six months.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment below varied

Orders

  • Quash ss. 39(1), (3), (4) and (5)(b) of Bylaw 2006-005
  • Suspension of quashing order for a period of six months from the date of this decision